01 March 2017

Ockham's Razor, Scepticism and Biblicism Part 1

This is a re-working of a post from 2010 on Nominalism and
Thomism. I have updated, clarified and expanded the original article.

I apologise in advance as there is a degree
of redundancy and overlap with the 'Riddles of Fundamentalism' piece. That
said, this essay ventures into other realms not covered in that series.

Part 1: History and Inference

Nominalism is often blamed for the
philosophical scepticism that arose in the 14th century leading to a climate that
allowed The Great Schism to happen, a breakdown in the authority and prestige
of the Papacy and ultimately the basis for the social consensus. It had sowed
the seeds which led to the breakdown of the Scholastic justification of the
Papal System and even Christendom itself.

I find it somewhat ironic that it is often interpreted this way. Ockham, though
certainly more of a Conceptualist than a strict Nominalist was only following
through on the logical conclusions of Aristotelian thought. Christian
Theology built on Aristotelianism could not and cannot stand the assault of the
Razor Ockham wielded. Regress and Validity based arguments destroy the
structures and foundations of theology dependent on two-dimensional logic.
Collapsing concepts to buttress coherence, the reductionism Science depends on,
is Ockham's contribution, useful perhaps when classifying insects, but
potentially destructive when it comes to constructing metaphysics or
understanding the different loci of Theology.

Since metaphysics are fallen man's
attempts to discover truth utilising reason and the categories of experience is
flawed from the start, this destructive negating tendency is not all bad.
Theology can be thought of as a form of metaphysics as well, but at that point
the Razor and the method which birthed it must be cast aside. A failure to do
so will result in theology's deformation and dissent into philosophy.

The Razor is usually understood as a
principle described as... given all the options, the simplest explanation is
usually the best. However this only hints at the principle which undergirds it.
That simple argument is based on Ockham's attack on the very nature of
universality and man's ability through reason to create categories of thought,
integrate and build a system. Ockham is attacking the idea of coherence, a
thought-project later taken up by figures like David Hume and even to some
degree someone like Blaise Pascal. Ockham and Hume represent a philosophy that
is ultimately anti-philosophy and
leaving man with a choice between reliance upon dogma or scepticism.

Ockham's method all but destroys Natural Law, confidence in
man's reason and thus ultimately the project of the Thomistic Synthesis. This
is why the Nominalist via moderna
presented such a danger to the Medieval System and for many Christians still
presents a vibrant danger.

While I would agree there is a certain peril in the attack
on coherence, I would argue that Ockham and the figures which follow him force
philosophy to its consequence and ultimately its destruction. Nihilism or the
embrace of Divine Revelation are (in the final analysis) the only honest options.
Others have realised this, but then subject revelation to the same criteria and
ultimately destroy its standing as well. This is because they bring the same
principles with them into the realm of theology. This represents an epistemic
fallacy and aberration and such 'theology' is really little more than
philosophy in another guise.

As I will continue to argue, the Razor, the attack on
coherence, is a powerful tool but one that can only destroy. It cannot build.
Many Aristotelian and Empiricist minded theologians in embracing reason, common
sense and system as necessary theological criteria have unwittingly taken it up
and sought to construct and strengthen theology. Instead they have sowed the
seeds for its collapse and the downfall of their larger project. Inevitably
this also includes a social and cultural element and the consequences for the
Church and the confusion this has sowed have been nothing less than
catastrophic.

There's also a danger in the Augustinian-Anselmian Credo ut Intelligam, believing in order
to understand. While this view is equated by some with Fideism, it's not. That
unfortunate label in reality belongs to the previously mentioned category which
understands faith and philosophy to be in a state of tension and opposition,
the old view that once cried 'what has Athens to do with Jerusalem'?

When compared to the Aristotelian approach of Thomism, the
Augustinian view may indeed seem like
a variety of Fideism. Actually a more helpful parallel would be to look at the
difference in epistemological methodology between Plato and Aristotle. In many
ways this is an argument over method with the end results not being all that
different.

I would argue the Augustinian-Anselmian model represents a
synthesis similar to Thomas but from a different approach. Rather than
inductively reasoning to the universal categories of faith, the Anselmian
approach seems to argue for a reasonable faith as a foundation or more properly
an axiom which allows for a subsequent (largely deductive) synthesis. Faith
enlightens nature (as it were) and provides a basis for coherence and synthesis.
Today this is more or less in keeping with the whole 'Worldview' approach that
dominates much of conservative Christendom.

Ockham's method destroys these systemic certainties and the
methodology itself. In terms of doctrine, Ockham's method is reliant on
authority in the form of dogma. Protestantism might appropriate the concept and
argue for sola scriptura. Ockham's
method contains within it the potential to destroy man's ability to formulate systems of thought as well as
the ability to infer. The latter is
in all actuality the basis of both the inductive and deductive approaches to
reason. Both involve a certain degree of circularity and are more properly
understood within a framework of inference. This is why in terms of Christian
theology both the Thomistic and Anselmian approaches are (in the end) not that
different. Both rely on the rather shaky foundation of human reason which can
only produce a limited and reductionist probability. Their claims of certainty
are exactly what Ockham's Razor ends up dismantling.

Ockham's approach contains a real danger, especially for
those who have not grasped the assumptions regarding the nature of theology. If
the method is employed to dissect and parse doctrinal claims, it begins to
deconstruct and disintegrate doctrinal foundations. The Razor is a weapon that
can be used to cast down man's attempts to form contrived coherences. This is
true both in the secular and ecclesiastical realms.

The Razor turns the weapons of Empirical and Rationalistic
approaches to epistemology against
themselves by exposing (in a sense) that both are based on inference. We
might expand that at another time and argue that inference is rooted in
transcendental argument. This is true of both the dogmatician and the adherent
to Scientism. All postulations ultimately rest on unverifiable faith-like
assumptions. Some have argued that verification can be found in coherence.
Ockham's Razor belies those claims.

By destroying all competing claims the Razor has the
potential to strengthen the absolute authoritative claims of Scripture, or if
used differently... destroy them. Ockham never meant to destroy the Papacy as
an institution though those within its hierarchy understood that his approach
was incompatible with their claims to authority. Ockham is in one sense the
culmination of Scholasticism and yet on the other hand he represents its death
blow.

I would argue both Catholicism and Magisterial Protestantism
turned against Ockham and what he represents. And yet in retaining the
Aristotelian-Thomistic approach... it came back to the fore in the
Enlightenment and eventually both the Roman and Protestant forms of
Scholasticism degenerated into Theological Liberalism in order to survive. The
tether for conservative Protestants has largely been Confessionalism, a
'stopping point' in the current of theological development, a means to discontinue
and shut down the Scholastic methodological mechanism. Once the safeguard of
the Confession is removed, the great machine of process is re-engaged and begins to immediately forge new paths.

I would argue Ockham was more or less correct in terms of
the broad epistemological spectrum but it must be vigorously argued that his
method has to be understood with regard to what it can and cannot do. It's a
mighty weapon in the hands of the apologist and Biblicist and yet it's also
wields the power to destroy and bring devastation. It must be understood and
employed with caution.